Original jurisdiction in case of Pauline Ross and H. Justin Ross, her husband v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board.
Thomas B. Rutter, with him Lawrence M. Silverman, for plaintiffs.
J. Leonard Langan, Assistant Attorney General, with him Guy J. DePasquale, Chief Counsel, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for defendants.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 35 Pa. Commw. Page 384]
Pauline Ross and H. Justin Ross (Plaintiffs) have filed a complaint in this Court's original jurisdiction against the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) resulting from an injury which is alleged to have occurred in a state liquor store operated and managed by the Board. The Board responded by way of preliminary objections asserting that it is immune from suit due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs concede that under the present state of laws
[ 35 Pa. Commw. Page 385]
this action would be barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, but they ask this Court to overrule the doctrine.
Despite Plaintiffs' well-reasoned argument to the contrary, we sustain the Board's preliminary objections and dismiss the complaint. Within the last several years, our Supreme Court has affirmed the sovereign immunity doctrine on numerous occasions*fn1 and is at the time of this writing considering other appeals from the doctrine's application. While this Court is not in unanimous agreement on this important issue (see, e.g., the writer's Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in Freach v. Commonwealth, 23 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 546, 553, 354 A.2d 908, 912 (1976)), until such time as the Supreme Court or the Legislature chooses to abolish or modify this doctrine, this Court has no choice but to continue to apply it.*fn2
And Now, this 22nd day of May, 1978, the preliminary objections of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board are sustained and the complaint of Pauline Ross and ...